A refervation
o f non-delivery
o f the article
is done
away by the
delivery o f it
to the acknowledger
;
dependant, in the fame manner as it would be included in the houfe
itfelf; and hence the exception is invalid.
If a perfon acknowledge, a debt o f a thoufand dirms to another, as
the price of a {lave which he had purchafed from that other, but
which he had not received from him, in that cafe, if the {lave be fpe-
cific, (as if he had faid, “ as the price of this {lave,” ) the perfon in
whofe favour the acknowledgment is made mull be defired to deliver
up the {lave and receive a thoufand dirms, on pain of forfeiting his
claim.—-The compiler of the Heddya remarks that this cafe admits o f
federal ftatements.— I. That which has been already made, and
which proceeds on the fuppofition of the acknowledger’s aflertion of
the purchafe and the non-delivery being 'verified by the perfon in whofe-
favour the acknowledgment is made; and in which the law {lands as
above expounded, becaufe the mutual agreement of the parties is
equivalent -to aElual infpedlion.— II. ^Where the perfon ‘in whofe-
favour the acknowledgment is. made denies the- fale of the particular
flave* alleged by the-acknowledger, and declares that “ the-
“ Have, in queftion is his property, and it isf another ■ {lave he fold to
“ him;”— in which cafe the acknowledger-is liable for the amount;
lince he acknowledges a lum due, on the fuppofition.of the-exiftehce-
of a flave which he. had purchafed; and confequently upon the other
perfon’s declaration o f the exiftence of the flave fold, he-becomes liable
for the amount.
O b j e c t i o n .— It would appear that the acknowledger is not re-
{ponfible for the.amount, fince.he acknowledges his debt of a thoufand
dirms. for the purchafe of a fpecific flave; whereas, the perfon in
whofe favour the acknowledgment is made claims the faid debt'for the
fale of another flave.— Naw as 'acknowledgment is binding only from
the particular'caufe which isafligned for it, and the caufe in this cafe-
is contradicted by the perfon in, whofe favour the acknowledgment is
made, it follows that the acknowledgment is not valid..
R e p l y .
C h ap. II.
R e p l y .— The contradiction, with refpedt to the caufe, after their
mutual agreement as to the exiftence of the obligation, is of no effeCt.
Thus if a perfon acknowledge.his refponfibility to another for a thoufand
dirms, as “ fo r goods purchafed from him," and the perfon in
whofe favour the acknowledgment is: made affert the obligation in
queftion to have arifen from ufurpation or loan, ftill the acknowledger
is refponfible for the amount; and fo alfe in the cafe in queftion._
— III. Where the perfon in whofe favour the acknowledgment
is made declares the flave in queftion to be his own property, and denies
his having fold him; in which cafe the acknowledger is exempted
from any obligation, becaufe he has-acknowledged the property to be
due only as in return fo r the flave, and confequently, without that,
it is not due from him.— If, however, in this cafe, the perfon in
whofe favour the acknowledgment is made ftiould- further declare that
“ he had fold another flave to him [the-acknowledger,]” both parties
muft be fworn;, becaufe they are both defendants, as -they reciprocally
deny the aflèrtións'of each Other:— and upon each- taking-an oath,
the obligation involved in the acknowledgment is annulled", and-‘the
flave remains With thé perfon in whofe "favour the acknowledgment
was made.— What-is here advanced proceeds "on a, fiippolition of the;
flave being fpecifii s for if a perfon acknowledge a debt o f a thobfand"
dirms, due to another, for a flave that he had purchafed-from him,
without fpecifically defcribing the flavè, the acknowledger is in that
cafe refponfible for a thoufand dirms:—-and his aflertion, that “ he had
‘ not received the flave,” is not to be regarded, according to Hanefa,
whether he conneft fuch aflèrtion with his acknowledgment, or.make
it feparatély; becaufe fuch-aflèrtion is a rëtraaion of* his acknow--
ledgment; for this reafon, that in acknowledging a thoufand 'dirms to
be due from him, he aflumes an obligation to that amount; and his,
denial of the receipt of the indefinite flave is repugnant to this obligation,
as the price is not due for an indefinite flave, becaufe of the uncertainty';—
and this, whether the uncertainty be interwoven in
the contradt, (as where a perfon purchafes- one out of two flaves-,.) or.
^ fupervenient
but in cafe o f
a diiagree-
ment with
refped to the
article,- both
parties muft
be fworm.
I f the article
be not fpecijic-y
the reservation
is not regarded.